May 21-25 CHL Instructor Class

[JustMe]

Just got the email that I have been placed in the May 21-25th Instructor Class! Yea!! In the email I got, it said there is another class June 18-22 and then not till September.

Now to the rescheduling tasks--I had it in my mind for the first of June!!

Mary

[Keith B]

Just got the email that I have been placed in the May 21-25th Instructor Class! Yea!! In the email I got, it said there is another class June 18-22 and then not till September.

Now to the rescheduling tasks--I had it in my mind for the first of June!!

Mary

I got conformation I am in the abbreviated class in June. Glad you got your timeframe, but sorry we won't be in the same class.

[TexasGal]

Congratulations to you both. You will find it eye-opening. In the past, there have been negative postings about the class, but that is old history. The current bunch are awesome. You will also enjoy the range qualification. Its an impressive facility and they run a tight ship.

[sjfcontrol]

Congratulations to you both. You will find it eye-opening. In the past, there have been negative postings about the class, but that is old history. The current bunch are awesome. You will also enjoy the range qualification. Its an impressive facility and they run a tight ship.

Really? They weren't saying you should obey ALL "no-gun" signs, or that carrying with "any" amount of alcohol in your system would cause "problems"?
I'm not trying to be snarky -- Just trying to figure out what you meant by that statement.

[clarionite]

Congratulations to you both. You will find it eye-opening. In the past, there have been negative postings about the class, but that is old history. The current bunch are awesome. You will also enjoy the range qualification. Its an impressive facility and they run a tight ship.

Really? They weren't saying you should obey ALL "no-gun" signs, or that carrying with "any" amount of alcohol in your system would cause "problems"?
I'm not trying to be snarky -- Just trying to figure out what you meant by that statement.

I was in the same class as TexasGal...

They taught the law, and they told us that local enforcement may not always interpret the law the same way we do. There is no "Case Law" to look at which means we as a community have been pretty good. Why take offence at someone teaching the law, and trying to help us stay out of trouble by telling us what the reality is?

[sjfcontrol]

Congratulations to you both. You will find it eye-opening. In the past, there have been negative postings about the class, but that is old history. The current bunch are awesome. You will also enjoy the range qualification. Its an impressive facility and they run a tight ship.

Really? They weren't saying you should obey ALL "no-gun" signs, or that carrying with "any" amount of alcohol in your system would cause "problems"?
I'm not trying to be snarky -- Just trying to figure out what you meant by that statement.

I was in the same class as TexasGal...

They taught the law, and they told us that local enforcement may not always interpret the law the same way we do. There is no "Case Law" to look at which means we as a community have been pretty good. Why take offence at someone teaching the law, and trying to help us stay out of trouble by telling us what the reality is?

Case law (as I understand it) is helpful for cases where the law as written is unclear or conflicted, or for "edge cases" where it isn't clear whether the specific situation at hand meets or doesn't meet the law as written. Both the examples I gave above seem to be clearly written laws, so I don't see that any case law would be particularly helpful.

I have no problem with them teaching "the law", obviously. However, I do start having problems when new instructors come out of the class with the understanding that they should teach "zero tolerance" to their students, or that ANY no-guns sign should be obeyed (and I believe there were a few other issues, too). I believe the DPS statement: "There is no legal limit to the amount of alcohol a CHL can consume while carrying" is purposefully worded to to make instructors believe that zero tolerance is the law. In fact, the law regarding the definition for intoxication for CHL references the definition of intoxication for driving a car.

On the other hand, it would also be improper for them to teach simply "intoxication for CHL is the same as for driving". Although that is correct, many people believe that means that any BAC under 0.08% means you're safe. And that's not the law, either. (For either CHL or driving)

Now, once they (DPS) have fully defined what the law is, and what the definition of intoxicated is, they'd be proper to point out that it is difficult for an individual to self-assess whether he has consumed enough to fail a SFST. But one way to be safe is not to carry after any consumption.

As for the signs, again the law is clear right down to the necessary size of the lettering, and the exact wording. I would warn about the alternate wording (4413 29ee), and certainly wouldn't recommend that a properly worded 30.06 sign be ignored because there was no spanish version -- especially for a english-speaking person. But those are decisions that the individual student can make for themselves. After all, all the students ARE adults, and should be capable of making their own decisions regarding how far they are willing to go.

Oh, and also I tend to cringe when an instructor (DPS or CHL) starts to worry their students that "local law enforcement may not always interpret the law the same way", especially with clearly defined laws such as the above. A more accurate way to say the same thing is: "local law enforcement may misunderstand or not know the law". Well, there is no effective way to protect yourself from LEOs that are actually ignorant of the law. Some LEO may think that the blue "no unlicensed carry" sign means no CHL, or that's it's illegal for non-licensees to carry a loaded gun in their car (MPA). Or that church carry is forbidden. Or any of any number of other things a LEO might believe that's incorrect.
The only way to protect yourself from an issue such as that would be to stay in your bedroom all day. (And I believe there used to be some laws in Texas that could even get you in trouble there, if the LEO didn't know they'd been invalidated! )

Also, issues regarding improper interpretation of the laws by LEOs *should* be resolvable between you, your lawyer and the prosecutor. An example would be an officer that believes any indication of alcohol while carrying is cause for arrest, and arrests you because he smelled alcohol on your breath (you used an alcohol-based mouth wash before leaving the house). Since the law is "no tolerance" (according to the LEO) you're thrown in jail with no further testing -- no breath analysis or SFST. Even if the prosecutor believes the same as the LEO, your lawyer should be able to point out the applicable laws to him, and point out that there is no evidence that you were actually intoxicated, and that he has no case. You might even be able to recover some costs (or more) thru a violation of civil-rights case against the department or city.

In closing -- I really wasn't trying to challenge TexasGal. I thought maybe these issues had been worked out. If so, I'd like to know about it. But it sounds to me that "old history" is not really correct.

[MoJo]

Whoa Nelly! One person came back from Instructor's school a little confused and asked about these issues now DPS is preaching heresy!

When I took my class they told us that there was no legal limit for intoxication when carrying. Sgt. Bamsch spent quite some time explaining that the results of a field sobriety test was up to the discretion of the officer giving the test. He was very careful to say it's legal to drink while carrying but illegal to carry while intoxicated. Signs, DPS legal folks said any sign shows intent not every sign is enforceable. They said a Gun-buster is enforceable if you are given effective notice. Not having a sign is enforceable with effective notice.

If you hear something in the class that confuses you, raise your hand and ask. If you are confused you can bet someone else may be.

DPS does a wonderful job of presenting the information, we should do as well receiving it.

[clarionite]

They taught the law...

And as far as Gun Buster signs, we were told they don't apply to us.
We were told that knit picking about 30.06 signs being exactly 1" in height would end up being interpreted by a judge if an officer decided that it was "Good Enough"
We were told that signs placed in a manor that wasn't conspicuous would be a defense to prosecution, but that you take you chances with the prosecution.

We were read the laws on intoxication. For driving and CHL. And in both cases it's not a cut and dry BAC level. If the officer has reason to believe you're impaired, then you're going to take a ride.
And we were given a friendly warning that if you've had anything to drink when you have to use your weapon the attorney that sues you is going to use the fact that you "Had been drinking" in his suite.

I for one, didn't find anything to get upset about in how it was presented. There was one bit of information that confused the class, and was given incorrectly. But it was corrected and gone over in detail the following day.

I thought the entire staff was knowledgeable, respectful, and extremely approachable. We definitely have friends in Austin who believe in our 2A rights.

Congratulations to you both. You will find it eye-opening. In the past, there have been negative postings about the class, but that is old history. The current bunch are awesome. You will also enjoy the range qualification. Its an impressive facility and they run a tight ship.

Really? They weren't saying you should obey ALL "no-gun" signs, or that carrying with "any" amount of alcohol in your system would cause "problems"?
I'm not trying to be snarky -- Just trying to figure out what you meant by that statement.

I was in the same class as TexasGal...

They taught the law, and they told us that local enforcement may not always interpret the law the same way we do. There is no "Case Law" to look at which means we as a community have been pretty good. Why take offence at someone teaching the law, and trying to help us stay out of trouble by telling us what the reality is?

Case law (as I understand it) is helpful for cases where the law as written is unclear or conflicted, or for "edge cases" where it isn't clear whether the specific situation at hand meets or doesn't meet the law as written. Both the examples I gave above seem to be clearly written laws, so I don't see that any case law would be particularly helpful.

I have no problem with them teaching "the law", obviously. However, I do start having problems when new instructors come out of the class with the understanding that they should teach "zero tolerance" to their students, or that ANY no-guns sign should be obeyed (and I believe there were a few other issues, too). I believe the DPS statement: "There is no legal limit to the amount of alcohol a CHL can consume while carrying" is purposefully worded to to make instructors believe that zero tolerance is the law. In fact, the law regarding the definition for intoxication for CHL references the definition of intoxication for driving a car.

On the other hand, it would also be improper for them to teach simply "intoxication for CHL is the same as for driving". Although that is correct, many people believe that means that any BAC under 0.08% means you're safe. And that's not the law, either. (For either CHL or driving)

Now, once they (DPS) have fully defined what the law is, and what the definition of intoxicated is, they'd be proper to point out that it is difficult for an individual to self-assess whether he has consumed enough to fail a SFST. But one way to be safe is not to carry after any consumption.

As for the signs, again the law is clear right down to the necessary size of the lettering, and the exact wording. I would warn about the alternate wording (4413 29ee), and certainly wouldn't recommend that a properly worded 30.06 sign be ignored because there was no spanish version -- especially for a english-speaking person. But those are decisions that the individual student can make for themselves. After all, all the students ARE adults, and should be capable of making their own decisions regarding how far they are willing to go.

Oh, and also I tend to cringe when an instructor (DPS or CHL) starts to worry their students that "local law enforcement may not always interpret the law the same way", especially with clearly defined laws such as the above. A more accurate way to say the same thing is: "local law enforcement may misunderstand or not know the law". Well, there is no effective way to protect yourself from LEOs that are actually ignorant of the law. Some LEO may think that the blue "no unlicensed carry" sign means no CHL, or that's it's illegal for non-licensees to carry a loaded gun in their car (MPA). Or that church carry is forbidden. Or any of any number of other things a LEO might believe that's incorrect.
The only way to protect yourself from an issue such as that would be to stay in your bedroom all day. (And I believe there used to be some laws in Texas that could even get you in trouble there, if the LEO didn't know they'd been invalidated! )

Also, issues regarding improper interpretation of the laws by LEOs *should* be resolvable between you, your lawyer and the prosecutor. An example would be an officer that believes any indication of alcohol while carrying is cause for arrest, and arrests you because he smelled alcohol on your breath (you used an alcohol-based mouth wash before leaving the house). Since the law is "no tolerance" (according to the LEO) you're thrown in jail with no further testing -- no breath analysis or SFST. Even if the prosecutor believes the same as the LEO, your lawyer should be able to point out the applicable laws to him, and point out that there is no evidence that you were actually intoxicated, and that he has no case. You might even be able to recover some costs (or more) thru a violation of civil-rights case against the department or city.

In closing -- I really wasn't trying to challenge TexasGal. I thought maybe these issues had been worked out. If so, I'd like to know about it. But it sounds to me that "old history" is not really correct.

[clarionite]

DPS does a wonderful job of presenting the information, we should do as well receiving it.

Exactly!

[Keith B]

They taught the law...

And as far as Gun Buster signs, we were told they don't apply to us.
We were told that knit picking about 30.06 signs being exactly 1" in height would end up being interpreted by a judge if an officer decided that it was "Good Enough"
We were told that signs placed in a manor that wasn't conspicuous would be a defense to prosecution, but that you take you chances with the prosecution.

We were read the laws on intoxication. For driving and CHL. And in both cases it's not a cut and dry BAC level. If the officer has reason to believe you're impaired, then you're going to take a ride.
And we were given a friendly warning that if you've had anything to drink when you have to use your weapon the attorney that sues you is going to use the fact that you "Had been drinking" in his suite.

I for one, didn't find anything to get upset about in how it was presented. There was one bit of information that confused the class, and was given incorrectly. But it was corrected and gone over in detail the following day.

I thought the entire staff was knowledgeable, respectful, and extremely approachable. We definitely have friends in Austin who believe in our 2A rights.

Sounds like they are teacjhing everything just the way they should to me.

Great take-away clarionite. Sounds like you had a great class. I expected as much. Looking forward to my class in June.

[Ameer]

And as far as Gun Buster signs, we were told they don't apply to us.
We were told that knit picking about 30.06 signs being exactly 1" in height would end up being interpreted by a judge if an officer decided that it was "Good Enough"

It sounds the same as "printing" because it's not illegal but it can end up being decided by a judge or jury if the cop thinks you're not concealing good enough.

[TexasGal]

I want to be able to carry my weapon safely and stay out of trouble. I don't want to pay a huge sum of money I do not have to defend myself from a misunderstanding of the letter of the law by an officer or the broad interpretation a district attorney in a anti-carry jurisdiction wants to take with it. I don't want to sit in jail or call a bail bondsman. Neither do I want my students to have to do these things or have one call me up to tell me he/she was arrested doing something I said was ok. Neither does the DPS. I see no reason to castigate any of us for this position. At the moment, the vast numbers of CHLs in Texas carry without incident most places they desire to. If you are independently wealthy and want to be the person who creates case law, Please do so with a case far more in our favor than carrying past a 30.06 sign with letters the wrong size/color, etc. or walking around a public school grounds while carrying. The DPS is on our side. They did advise we know the flavor of the jurisdiction we live in and that would help us make decisions to avoid problems. Again, the DPS is working to help us and protect our right to carry.

[sjfcontrol]

I want to be able to carry my weapon safely and stay out of trouble. I don't want to pay a huge sum of money I do not have to defend myself from a misunderstanding of the letter of the law by an officer or the broad interpretation a district attorney in a anti-carry jurisdiction wants to take with it. I don't want to sit in jail or call a bail bondsman. Neither do I want my students to have to do these things or have one call me up to tell me he/she was arrested doing something I said was ok. Neither does the DPS. I see no reason to castigate any of us for this position. At the moment, the vast numbers of CHLs in Texas carry without incident most places they desire to. If you are independently wealthy and want to be the person who creates case law, Please do so with a case far more in our favor than carrying past a 30.06 sign with letters the wrong size/color, etc. or walking around a public school grounds while carrying. The DPS is on our side. They did advise we know the flavor of the jurisdiction we live in and that would help us make decisions to avoid problems. Again, the DPS is working to help us and protect our right to carry.

That is perfectly fine. You've made that decision. Allow your students to make the same decision. Don't make it for them. That's all I'm saying.

[WildBill]

And as far as Gun Buster signs, we were told they don't apply to us.
We were told that knit picking about 30.06 signs being exactly 1" in height would end up being interpreted by a judge if an officer decided that it was "Good Enough"

It sounds the same as "printing" because it's not illegal but it can end up being decided by a judge or jury if the cop thinks you're not concealing good enough.

Both of these cases would have to get by the DA before a judge or jury would see them.

[JustMe]

I want to be able to carry my weapon safely and stay out of trouble. I don't want to pay a huge sum of money I do not have to defend myself from a misunderstanding of the letter of the law by an officer or the broad interpretation a district attorney in a anti-carry jurisdiction wants to take with it. I don't want to sit in jail or call a bail bondsman. Neither do I want my students to have to do these things or have one call me up to tell me he/she was arrested doing something I said was ok. Neither does the DPS. I see no reason to castigate any of us for this position. At the moment, the vast numbers of CHLs in Texas carry without incident most places they desire to. If you are independently wealthy and want to be the person who creates case law, Please do so with a case far more in our favor than carrying past a 30.06 sign with letters the wrong size/color, etc. or walking around a public school grounds while carrying. The DPS is on our side. They did advise we know the flavor of the jurisdiction we live in and that would help us make decisions to avoid problems. Again, the DPS is working to help us and protect our right to carry.

That is something that really bothers me--It's almost like some people think--Oh well-so what if I have to go to jail-I'll win in court.

So I would win in court--I know that--BUT--I DON"T WANT TO GO TO JAIL FOR ANY REASON!!!! I don't understand why people are so cavalier about it--to me THAT is a big deal!